Thomson drops bid to delay court hearing

Mr Thomson was arrested last week and faces 150 fraud chargesCraig Thomson was arrested last week and faces 150 fraud charges relating to his time as national secretary of the Health Services Union, which he held before entering parliament in 2007.
AFR

The federal Opposition on Monday confirmed that Mr Thomson had been granted a pair, meaning his attendance at the court in Melbourne would not affect voting in the federal Parliament sitting in Canberra.

Mr Thomson’s lawyer, Chris McArdle, said he had been confident that the Parliamentary Privileges Act meant his client would not have been obliged to appear in court while federal Parliament was sitting. But Mr McArdle said the Opposition had indicated that Mr Thomson would be given a pair, meaning his absence would not affect voting in the Parliament.

Related Quotes

Company Profile

The Opposition has demanded the government not accept the vote of Mr Thomson, who is one of seven crossbenchers. The others are: Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott, Andrew Wilkie, Adam Bandt, Bob Katter and Peter Slipper.

To pass legislation, the government needs the support of at least five, and four if it is to block an opposition motion.

In an interview with News Ltd ahead of his court appearance, Mr Thomson said he planned to see out his parliamentary term. Asked whether he would consider standing for re-election, he said: “I will consult colleagues, family and friends and make a decision in due course," he said.

Speaking soon after the arrest, NSW Detective Superintendent Col Dyson told reporters that Mr Thomson had been invited by Vic­torian police to surrender himself before Christmas but had refused.

However, Mr McArdle argued that it was incorrect to say that Mr Thomson had been invited to surrender for arrest.

In a statement issued on Monday morning, Detective Superintendent Dyson conceded the words he used were incorrect.

“The arrest warrant indicated that Mr Thomson was invited to Victoria to be interviewed," the statement said.

“It additionally indicated that the arrest warrant was issued on the grounds that he was avoiding the service of the summons.

“I concede the word ‘summons’ and not ‘arrest’ should have been used when I referred to the wording on the warrant."